Funding for this study was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This report is adapted and

updated from an October 2009 report to the Foundation.

Alex Insaurralde

Mary Schmida

Steven Weiss

WestEd Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL) Research Team

Aída Walqui, Director

Nanette Koelsch

Leslie Hamburger

Donna Gaarder

Additional ContributorsPeggy Estrada, Associate Research Scientist, Latin American and Latino Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz

Neal Finkelstein, Senior Research Scientist, WestEd

Melissa Eiler White, Senior Policy Associate, WestEd

Advisory GroupClaude Goldenberg, Professor of Education, Stanford University

Kenji Hakuta, Lee L. Jacks Professor of Education, Stanford University

Cindy Pease-Alvarez, Associate Professor, Department of Education, University of California, Santa Cruz

Shelley Spiegel-Coleman, Executive Director, Califor-nians Together

Lydia Stack, Independent Consultant, San Francisco

Teresa Walter, Director, Office of English Language Acquisition, San Diego Unified School District

Special Thanks

Lynn Murphy, Editor

Christian Holden, Design Director, WestEd

Copyright © 2010 WestEd. All rights reserved.

Requests for permission to reproduce any parts of this report should be directed to WestEd Publications Cen-ter, 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107-1242, 888-293-7833, fax 415-512-2024, permissions@wested.org, or http://www.WestEd.org/permissions.

Suggested citation:

Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., Hamburger, L., et al. (2010, May). What are we doing to middle school English Learners? Findings and recommendations for change from a study of California EL programs (Narrative Summary). San Francisco: WestEd.

See also the full report:

Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., Hamburger, L., et al. (2010, May). What are we doing to middle school English Learners? Findings and recommendations for change from a study of California EL programs (Research Report). San Francisco: WestEd.

PAGE

1

What are we doing to middle school English Learners?

Findings and recommendations for change from a study of California EL programs

What if your child were enrolled in an education program that produced these results: In a given year, most students

make less than a year’s progress and not an insignificant number actually regress (California Department of Education,

2008)? That is the picture shown below of English Learner education in California, home to more than 30 percent of

the nation’s English Learners (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2008).

The CELDT The California English Language Development Test (CELDT) is given to newly enrolled students whose primary language is not English and to English Learners as an annual assessment. It is a test of the four domains of English language arts: reading, writ-ing, speaking, and listening. It is not related to the academic uses of English that students encounter in disciplinary classes.

Test scores on the CELDT rate students from level 1 to 5: beginning, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, and advanced. The state considers levels 1–3 to be less than “reasonably fluent.”

Furthermore, what if the population of these under-

served, underperforming students were growing expo-

nentially, with projections that in the next decade they

would represent 25 percent of all students across the

country (U.S. Department of Education, 2006)?Source: California Department of Education, 2008.

Change in CELDT proficiency level 2006-07 to 2007-08, by previous year proficiency level

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

(in

thou

sand

s)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-1 or More

No Change

+1 or More

Beginning EarlyAdvanced

AdvancedEarly Intermediate

Intermediate

PAGE

2

Chances are you would recognize the urgent need to

rethink the education of English Learners in the United

States. This reality prompted the undertaking of the study

reported here — what programs for English Learners look

like in California. The study, conducted by researchers

in the Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL)

program at Wested, was funded by the William and Flora

Hewlett Foundation to understand what districts and

middle schools are doing for their ELs, to find instances

of promising practices that others could learn from, and

to identify the enduring challenges that must be faced.

Study ParticipantsFifty districts in California enroll 52 percent of the state’s English Learners. From that group, 13 districts participated in this study, including 9 of the 13 districts that have the greatest number of English Learners in the state. Sixty-four middle schools in those districts also participated. Surveys were conducted with the per-son at the district level most responsible for English Learners, typically the directors of specialized EL departments or offices. At the school level, surveys were conducted with those identi-fied as “most knowledgeable” about EL instruction, and included principals, assistant principals, and EL coordinators.

Case studies were developed for five representative study schools, and they contextualize the recommendations made later in this report.

Why a Study of English Learners in Middle School?

Adolescent English Learners in California middle and

high schools do not fare well in school, socially or ac-

ademically, and they fall increasingly behind native

English speakers year by year. It is not surprising that

they struggle. In addition to the challenge of simultane-

ously learning the academic uses of English and subject

matter content, they are more likely to have unquali-

fied teachers and to lack access to a quality curriculum

(Gándara and Rumberger, 2003).

The decision to focus a study on middle schools reflects

the understanding that the middle school years are

a critical transition period for all adolescents, one

that determines their academic and social futures; for

adolescent second language learners, this period is

especially complex.

b Students begin to more consciously explore their identity, including their academic identity, and to find their individual role within the family and diverse social groups.

b What young people do and learn during their adolescent years can establish their interests, strengths, and limitations for the rest of their lives (Wilson and Horch, 2002).

b Indeed, the academic and social experiences of middle school students have a potent effect on their intellectual confidence and interest and motivation in school (Eccles, 2008).

PAGE

3

b Furthermore, students’ middle school success

or failure is a strong predictor of high school

academic performance and completion

(Rumberger and Lim, 2008).

The Double Gap

To succeed academically, all English Learners must

overcome a “double gap,” first to equal the (relatively low)

achievement of their native-speaking counterparts, and

then to reach a level of achievement that is considered

grade-level “proficient.” Nationwide, an alarming 70

percent of eighth grade English Learners read below

the proficient level on the 2009 National Assessment

of Educational Progress, although many middle school

students who are native speakers of English do not

perform well on these measures, either.

b Figure 1 shows that, on average, eighth graders

who are second language learners perform at a

scale score of 219 in reading, while their native-

speaking counterparts score 265.

b However, all eighth graders should attain

proficiency at the eighth grade level (281 on the

scale).

b Figure 2 shows a similar double gap in the

achievement of adolescent English Learners in

mathematics.

b In California, the double gap parallels the

national situation in both subjects.

Figure 1. Grade 8 reading average scale score, by status as English Learner in the U.S. and California: 2009

Figure 2. Grade 8 mathematics average scale score, by status as English Learner in the U.S. and California: 2009

Source: NCES, The Nation’s Report Card, Reading 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Non-EL

EL

US CA

Proficient level score: 281

Basic level score: 243

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Non-EL

EL

Proficient level score: 299Basic level score: 262

US CA

Source: NCES, The Nation’s Report Card, Mathematics 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8.

PAGE

4

Since English Learners have more ground to cover than

other students, policies and practices that accelerate their

access to standards-based instruction (in contrast to low-

level ELD instruction) would appear to be necessary.

The first phase of this study focused on what policies and

practices are, in fact, defining the education of middle

school English Learners in California.

The Landscape of Instruction for Middle School English Learners in California

In California, state policy sets minimal EL programmatic

requirements:

b EL students must have access to classes that are

either Structured English Immersion (SEI) or

English Language Mainstream.

b SEI classes, often referred to as “sheltered

instruction,” are characterized by SDAIE

(Specially Designed Academic Instruction in

English) approaches specific to the instruction

of English Learners. The state recommends but

does not mandate SEI for students who have less

than “reasonable fluency” (CELDT levels 1–3).

b If EL students are placed in mainstream classes,

the state requires that they receive extra support

(leaving the determination of support vague) until

such time as they are redesignated “fluent English

proficient” — by the district — after meeting a

minimum state cutpoint on the CELDT (districts

may set higher cutpoints) and meeting district-

defined cutpoints on state standards tests and any

other criteria the district chooses to require.

b Mainstreamed English Learners who are two or

more years below grade level on state standards tests

must be enrolled in an “intensive” intervention,

which typically takes the form of remedial reading

instruction designed for native speakers of English.

District EL Programs Vary Widely and Are Differentially Implemented Within Districts

Because California allows districts to set their own criteria

for reclassifying English Learners as “fluent” and no longer

in need of special instruction, it was not surprising in this

study to find that districts’ approaches to the instruction of

English Learners vary — to a degree that lacks coherence.

More surprising, perhaps, is the study finding that even

within a district, the implementation of English Learner

programs and policies — defined and supported by the

district — varies from school to school or even within

a school.

b In some middle schools, English Learners

encounter an extended ELD program that focuses

on the literacy skills tested by the CELDT (see

the Bay City Middle School case study).

b In other middle schools, the focus is on quick

transition into mainstream courses where ELs

PAGE

5

will encounter grade-level, standards-based instruction (see the Inland City Middle School case study).

b There are also schools that have dramatically different “tracks” for different groups of ELs (see the Valley City Middle School case study).

As shown in table 1, schools’ definition of “sheltered”

can include English only (EO) students in a class

that, by definition, is designed for ELs. Table 2 shows

that English learners even at CELDT level 1 may be

mainstreamed rather than sheltered for content area

instruction. On the other hand, in some schools, English

Learners remain segregated in sheltered classes even at

CELDT levels 4 and 5.

The lack of coherence in how academic content is

provided to middle school ELs, even within a district,

points to a larger problem: English Learners’ access

to standards-based academic content depends on the

school they attend.

EL Teaching Practices and Support for EL Teaching Are Inadequate

Districts identifed three primary challenges in

supporting instruction of ELs’ language acquisition

and academic development. Responses focused on

ineffective teaching practices, the dearth of appropriate

professional development, and concerns about

inconsistent implementation of the district EL program

across its middle schools. (See box 1.)

Table 1. Study schools reporting sheltered content instruction, by CELDT levels and the presence of English Only students

CELDT Levels 1 2 3 4 5

Sheltered with no EO students

31 28 20 10 9

Sheltered with EO students

14 14 12 7 6

Sheltered with no EO/EL listed

1 1 0 0 0

Total schools reporting sheltered

46 43 32 17 15

Total schools reporting sheltered or mainstreamed

63 63 63 62 61

Note: These counts reflect the number of schools that report a sheltered class in any subject area (i.e., at least one subject area). Therefore, a given district may be represented more than once in a given column.

Table 2: Study schools reporting mainstream instruction, by CELDT levels, by subject area

CELDT Levels 1 2 3 4 5

ELA 18 22 34 41 46

Math 28 32 45 49 54

Science 29 33 47 50 56

Social Studies 26 30 44 49 54

Total schools report-ing mainstreaming with SDAIE

29 33 48 51 57

PAGE

6

Likewise, schools also identified poor teacher

effectiveness and inadequate training and support as

a major challenge in educating ELs, although they

more often focused on ineffective institutional support,

followed by students characterized as underprepared

and unmotivated. Schools also cited lack of parent

involvement as a challenge. (See box 1.)

Box 1: Biggest challenges in the instruction of middle school English Learners

District Interview Data School Interview Data

1. Ineffective teaching practices

1. Ineffective institutional (district and site) support

2. Ineffective/insufficient teacher professional development

2. “Deficits” in student development (low motivation and limited education)

3. Inconsistent program implementation across district schools

3. Ineffective preparation/support for EL teaching and low content area teacher motivation to teach ELs

4. Lack of parent involvement

Inadequate EL Materials and Pacing Guides Determine EL Instruction to a Large Degree

While districts recognize the need to improve EL

instruction, school interviews reveal that teachers are

most influenced by the EL textbooks chosen by the

district and the pacing guides developed at the district

level, and not by professional development efforts to

improve instructional approaches. Additionally, it is

noteworthy that interviewees focused on EL materials

and did not mention content area materials. According

to school respondents, EL students simply are not being

supported to access subject matter content that the state

requires, either through instructional materials or, by

and large, through professional development.

Implications

b Both the lack of coherence in programs for ELs at

the middle school level and the “implementation

gap” between districts and schools point out the

need for comprehensive reform. The status quo

must go. Building the capacity of administrators

to support EL instruction in middle schools may

help, but no districts provide for it in their EL

plans or program supports.

b Districts clearly recognize the need for teacher

professional development to support the

instruction of English Learners. The short supply

of teachers well prepared to work with ELs is a

challenge to all districts. In both ELD and content

area classes, teachers are felt to lack pedagogical or

subject matter skills to support English Learners,

regardless of CLAD credentials. Schools echoed

the need to increase teacher effectiveness. These

district and school findings underscore the need

for unpacking what constitutes effective, high-

quality professional development for ELD and

content area teachers of middle school ELs, and

making it widely available.

PAGE

7

b An important issue that emerges from school

findings is a lack of alignment between schools’

primary supports for and challenges to their

ELs’ academic development and linguistic ac-

quisition. Teachers’ and students’ lack of mo-

tivation were identified as primary challenges,

yet, only 6 of 62 school interviewees identified

a focus on student engagement as a support

they offer. None identified a focus on teacher

engagement and motivation. Similarly, parental

involvement was identified as a major challenge

by school interviewees, but only 2 of 62 schools

identified a focus on involving parents as an im-

portant support they provide.

b The complexities not only in programs, services,

and supports for ELs but also in definitions and

relationships between the various levels of authority

that influence the instruction of ELs are myriad (see

the full report, What are we doing to middle school

English Learners: Findings and recommendations

for change from a study of California EL programs

[Research Report]). However, case studies developed

from a subset of participating schools reveal at the

school and classroom level what it can mean to be an

English Learner in a California middle school, based

on the choices that schools make in the placement of

EL students and in the teaching and learning practices

that are promoted in their academic programs.

In addition to mapping the EL landscape in California

middle schools, study researchers also investigated the

specific instructional context of middle schools through

case studies of five middle schools where students were

performing above state averages. Based on what these

schools demonstrate about current practices, and how

consonant or dissonant these practices are with current

knowledge on instructed second language acquisition,

researchers made recommendations that can be

considered from several vantage points: state, district,

school, and classroom.

Recommendations Based on Case Studies and Best Practices

Case Study SchoolsResearchers intended to identify a small subset of schools where “promising practices” for the instruction of English Learners could be reported for consideration by other middle schools. Schools were identified by triangulation of student data (sub-stantially higher than average EL performance on standardized measures), survey responses, and district recommendations.

Researchers conducted preliminary observations and interviews in 12 schools and selected 5 schools as representative “cases.” In some schools, researchers did find promising practices. In other schools, “unpromising practices” could not be ignored. Exam-ples of both kinds are reported and merit attention.

PAGE

8

Guiding Assumptions

A coherent program of instruction for English Learners

will be guided by a coherent set of assumptions about who

the learners are, what they are capable of, and the practices

that will support them. In two of the case study schools,

coherent but different sets of guiding assumptions

highlight the importance of those assumptions.

Bay City Middle SchoolThe Bay City Middle School is a neighborhood school in a neighborhood of newly arrived immigrants and other Latino families who have settled in the inner city. As has been true for the past 15 years at Bay City, about 4 of every 10 students enter the school as English Learners. Over the years, a highly structured, multi-level ELD program has been construct-ed to serve a minority of these students.

Twenty-two percent of Bay City’s English Learners are enrolled in the ELD program. Typi-cally, they spend three years with ELD High Point curriculum, which the school decelerates, so that students exit eighth grade having completed fifth-grade content. In other content areas as well, these students are “sheltered” from core grade-level content and curriculum. Instead, the school offers many levels of ELD or sheltered content instruction. Even students at CELDT level 5 can find themselves placed in sheltered math and science classes. Teachers report that the ELD program does not prepare students to enter the core curriculum classes.

On the other hand, the 78 percent of English Learners who are not eligible for ELD (English Learners who have already exited ELD in earlier grades) are placed in mainstream content area classes, where teachers are not prepared to support them. Many of these students are two or more years below grade level on the state’s standardized language arts test, and so must enroll in one of the school’s two reading interventions. Forty percent of the school’s EL students populate these courses.

In 2009, English Learners at Bay City redesignated fluent English proficient at the rate of 12.2 percent, compared with the state average of 10.8 percent.

At Bay City Middle School, English Learners in the school’s

ELD program are vigorously “sheltered” from grade-level

content, while English Learners no longer eligible for ELD

sink or swim in mainstream classes (the district limits the

number of years students can stay in ELD).

PAGE

9

At Inland City Middle School, the focus is on getting

English Learners out of ELD and into grade-level

Inland City Middle SchoolInland City Middle School is located in a solidly middle-class neighborhood, but neighborhood students tend to enroll elsewhere. The school is in its fifth year of Program Improvement. Yet in the past two years, the school’s API index has risen impressively, a total of 71 points.

The bedrock of the school’s focus on improvement has been universal access to grade-level content. For example, all students who are not ready for algebra are placed in intensive double-period, gender-segregated prep classes with some of the school’s best teachers. In 2009, eighth grade ELs performed unusually well, with 34 percent scoring proficient or higher, far above the state average of 14 percent. Forty percent of ELs enroll in mainstream courses; their classmates are native English speakers, their teachers all have CLAD creden-tials, and the content is at grade level or above. Even English Learners at the lowest CELDT levels participate in the school’s improvement culture, finishing the three-year High Point sequence in two years, for example, in classes where teachers use it only as a supplement to the grade-level content they otherwise provide. Any student in the school, EO or EL, who is struggling in language arts enrolls in a two- or three-period block that uses a grade-level curriculum aligned with grade-level content standards rather than a below-grade-level reading intervention. Even so, only 6 percent of ELs are in these courses.

Reclassification rates for the school’s English Learners are double the state rate, even though the school’s reclassification criteria are the most stringent among the case study schools. A concern is that these criteria may be unnecessarily stringent, delaying reclassifi-cation for many of the 49 percent of Inland City ELs who are early advanced or advanced by CELDT standards

courses. A related emphasis is acceleration rather

than remediation.

PAGE

10

ecommendations about remediation and acceleration:

RR RAccelerateRtheRpaceRatRwhichREnglishRLearnersRengageRwithRgrade-levelRcontent.

RR RProvideRadditionalRgrade-levelRsupportR(notRbelow-grade-levelRremediation)RtoRstudentsRRwhoRneedRit.R

RR RReconsiderRredesignationRcriteriaRtoRfavorRaccessRtoRgrade-levelRcontent.

Structural Supports

How can schools be organized to best support English

Learners? What structures need to be in place? Foothill

City Middle School, a small, autonomous school, is an

example of a school that is built to support learners. The

school flourishes to a large degree because of its strong

outreach to parents and a staff that is committed to

everyone’s growth — students’, parents’, and their own.

It is a true learning community.

Foothill City Middle SchoolFoothill City Middle School is a small, autonomous school of about 300 students. Anyone in the district may attend, but the school demographics reflect the school’s low-income Latino and Asian neighborhood. About half of students are English Learners.

Adults and students know each other at Foothill. First period every day is “Advisory,” and every teacher and administrator in the building is involved. Advisory groups are small and have two purposes, academic and personal. As a matter of course, advisory leaders keep track, with students, of students’ progress on assignments and learning goals. Advisory is also a place for community building, character building, and what the school calls “chal-lenge activities.” Challenge activities are developed by three grade-level Advisory coordi-nators, who plan together and with their grade-level teachers each Friday for the following week’s Advisory classes. For example, one Advisory period students were involved in a teacher-designed game about academic choices, “College for All.” Explicit in the game’s design is the message that every student in the school will attend college.

The school’s Family Resource Center offers English classes to parents three days a week and other parent education classes once a month. It also serves as a catalyst for parent engagement and support of students. Sign-in sheets from recent meetings reflect that an

PAGE

11

average of 75 parents attend monthly School Site Council meetings and another 25 attend meetings of the English Learner Advisory Council. The director of the family center is a paid position, funded through the after-school program, but all other personnel are volun-teers, and there is no shortage of them.

Teachers at Foothill City invest in their own learning. A fulltime “instructional facilitator” leads two series of ongoing professional development each year, one of which focuses on ELs. Teachers also select personal target areas to work on. In focus groups, they support one another’s action research, and the culmination for each teacher is a formal presentation to peers. Teachers post their presentation materials in the school hallways, publicly demon-strating their commitment to students and to their own professional growth.

For English Learners specifically, the school structures a before-school period known as “AM Boost,” designed to prepare ELs stalled at CELDT levels 3 and 4 to enroll in main-stream, not ELD, classes by the time they get to high school. In AM Boost classes, students practice using the academic language they will need later that day in their English/humani-ties courses. ELD teachers use the district’s ELD course of study instead of High Point cur-riculum and are also supported by the instructional facilitator to develop their own stan-dards-based materials. (AM Boost is also available for students who are below grade level in math, as is an after-school math program.)

Support for English Learners extends into the mainstream classes, where instructional prac-tices mirror those of the ELD and AM Boost classes: interactive, language-rich tasks that structure high levels of collaboration and student talk about grade-level academic content and processes. ELD level 1 and 2 students have their own self-contained English and social studies class, but they are mainstreamed for math and science. For these classes, a tutor ac-companies the students and helps with translation and clarification on the spot.

While Foothill City English Learners redesignate at a relatively high rate of 19.2 percent, faculty and administrators remain dissatisfied with students’ progress. “We need to do ev-erything we are doing, but do it better,” says the instructional facilitator.

PAGE

12

ecommendations about structural supports:

RR RCreateRsmallRschools,RorRschoolsRwithinRschools,RwhereRrelationshipsRcount.

RR RHireRandRnurtureRtalentedRadvocatesRforRELs,RRinRleadershipRandRteachingRroles.

RR BringRparentsRintoRtheRschoolRinRmeaningfulRways.

RR RCreateRAdvisoryRperiodsRthatRareRacademicallyRandRsociallyRmeaningful.R

RR RInvestRinRongoingRprofessionalRdevelopmentRthatRinvolvesRallRteachersRinRunderstandingRhowRtoRsupportREnglishRLearners.

RR RProvideRtargetedRsupport,RsuchRasRAMRBoost,RforRELsRwhoRneedRit.

Placement Decisions

English Learners’ encounter with school begins with

placement decisions. At Valley City Middle School,

isolating and stigmatizing placements for ELs tend to

be self-fulfilling sentences for many students, while

affirmative placements seem to create their own rewards.

Valley City Middle SchoolValley City Middle School enjoys a school culture steeped in success. About 1,200 of the school’s 2,300 students are enrolled in the campus GATE program. Another 850 or so have won lottery places in the magnet science, math, and technology program. A third program serves about 350 neighborhood students.

The small percentage of students who are English Learners are placed in one of two dra-matically different academic trajectories. The highest scoring 20 percent are mainstreamed into all content area classes except ELA. The other 80 percent spend their days in sheltered classes, grouped with special education students and any students identified with serious behavior problems. Thirty-one percent of Valley City ELs redesignate as fluent English pro-ficient, but not many of them come from the isolated, demotivating sheltered classes. The school’s EL coordinator observes, “The students with good models have moved quickly. Those without good models don’t move forward, they get stuck.”

PAGE

13

ecommendations about placement decisions:

RR RAvoidRELRplacementsRthatRareRisolatingRandRstigmatizing.RDoRnotRdenyRanyRgroupRofRELRstudentsRaRwell-supportedRexperienceRofRchallengingRmainstreamRclasses.

Because EL placement is so important, both initially and

as students learn and grow, recognize the variables that go

into EL placement. Some English Learners have had very

little schooling or are not literate in their first language

(L1); they need to first develop rich literacy skills in their

own language since it is not possible to learn to read with

understanding in an unknown language. Other ELs may

be highly literate in their L1; they should be supported

to transfer these skills into their new language through

accelerated development of oral English. In different

content areas, English Learners’ disciplinary knowledge

should determine their appropriate courses and the extra

supports they may need to accelerate their development

and mainstream them into regular subject matter courses

as soon as possible.

Timing of EL testing is also important. Often, CELDT results

come too late to inform placement decisions. Students take

the CELDT between July and October, but scoring is done

by the state and results are typically not made available

to students’ schools until January or February, long after

most class assignments have been made.

ecommendations about placement testing:

RR RMakeRELRplacementRmoreRnimble.RKnowRwhatRstudentsRknow,RincludingRinRtheirRL1.

RR KnowRenoughRaboutRstudents’RskillsRtoRmakeRap-propriateRplacementsRinRtheRabsenceRofRCELDTRscores.R(ARmoreRdirectRrecommendationRwouldRbeRtoRtheRCaliforniaRDepartmentRofREducation:RAd-justRCELDTRtimingRtoRmakeRitRusefulRtoRschools.)

Curriculum Supports

In the study survey of ELD programs, schools

overwhelmingly cited the curriculum and pacing

guides provided by the districts as the most influential

component of districts’ programs for English Learners.

In four of the five case study schools, districts had

prescribed the High Point ELD program, and most

teachers and administrators bemoaned the limitations

of this protracted below-grade-level approach. Many

ELD teachers either supplemented High Point with

grade-level curriculum or they made High Point the

supplement in classes driven by grade-level curriculum.

(At the small, autonomous Foothill City Middle School,

where ELD teachers were free not to choose High Point,

they didn’t. And they were supported by the school’s

ELD coordinator and instructional facilitator to create

their own materials.)

As for content area courses, study respondents reported

that subject matter texts do not support access by

English Learners, and that, by and large, professional

development does not fill the gap.

PAGE

14

ecommendations about curriculum supports:

RR RAccelerateRtheRpaceRatRwhichREnglishRLearnersRengageRwithRgrade-levelRcontent.R(Purposely,RthisRrecommendationRisRbeingRrepeated!)

RR RSupportRELDRteachersRinRsupplementingRbelow-gradeRmaterialsRwithRgrade-levelRmaterialsRandRinRcreatingRtheirRownRmaterials.

RR RDemandRcontentRareaRmaterialsRthatRsupportRaccessRforREnglishRLearners.

Pedagogical and Professional Development Supports

Complaints about the preparation and ongoing

professional development of teachers to support English

Learners was a recurring chord in the study survey of

ELD programs. District and school respondents alike

expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of instruction

provided to ELs. Classroom observations in case study

schools did little to allay those concerns. It was the

unusual teacher who understood and could implement

quality, accelerated instruction for English Learners.

Acceleration presupposes that teachers know how to provide

students with lessons in which high challenge is balanced

with high support — notably, a wide variety of scaffolding

techniques. Furthermore, designing and teaching well-

scaffolded lessons presupposes that teachers have robust

subject matter knowledge, understand the linguistic

demands of their discipline, and have the pedagogical

expertise to put these together for English Learners.

It is not the case that ELs first need to learn English

and then subject matter content. Guadalupe Valdes and

colleagues (2009) have proposed that a serious problem

in the teaching of English Learners has to do with the

curricularization of language, that is, breaking down and

segmenting language so that it can be “taught,” “learned,”

and “tested” in gradual increments. Likewise, as Rod

Ellis (2005) has pointed out, the atomistic teaching of

language structures may render good results in atomistic

testing, but it does not produce competent users of

language. Instead, students need to be invited to engage

in activity that has them explain, compare and contrast,

and hypothesize — in collaboration with others.

Such a prescription necessarily involves an emphasis

on three key elements: oral interaction, and students’

metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness. The

importance of practicing English orally in sustained

discourse about academic ideas and processes cannot

be overstated. Even in the case study schools, where

ELs perform better than in other schools, students

did not get nearly as much practice in talking through

ideas with others as research suggests is necessary

(Schleppegrell, 2009; Gibbons, 2009). The development

of students’ language awareness and metacognitive

processes is pivotal in fostering their autonomy. If

students understand disciplinary processes at work

in English, and how to learn, they will own the tools

for becoming competent learners as the exigencies of

language and content increase during their academic

lives and beyond.

PAGE

15

ecommendations about pedagogical supports:

RR RDesignRlessonsRthatRareRdemandingRbutRenticing.RScaffoldRstudents’RaccessRtoRimportantRdisciplinaryRcontentRandRprocesses.

RR RDesignRlessonsRthatRinvolveRstudentsRinRexplaining,Rcomparing,RandRhypothesizingR—RRinRcollaborationRwithRothers.R

RR RMakeRsureRthatRallRstudentsRtalkR—RaboutRkeyRdisciplinaryRconceptsRandRprocesses!

RR DevelopRstudents’RawarenessRofRlanguageRandRlearningRsoRthatRtheyRcanRsupportRtheirRownRfutureRlearning.

Most teachers will need to be supported in meeting

the pedagogical recommendations above. The goals

of professional development should be to create in

all educators at a school a shared vision of effective

teaching — for all students and for English Learners in

particular — and to provide supported practice enacting

this vision.

In the earlier description of Foothill City Middle School,

a very strong culture of professional growth and adult

learning was shown to permeate the school. Time,

resources, and staff commitment have all been necessary

ingredients there. At Ocean City Middle School — where

96 percent of students qualify for free and reduced-price

lunch, 40 percent are English Learners, and student

turnover is 40 percent a year — a commitment has also

been made to professional growth for teachers. All new

teachers attend a five-day induction program in which

four days are dedicated to EL instructional strategies and

lesson planning. All teachers in the school attend SDAIE

training. Cross-disciplinary use of graphic organizers

has been a focus of recent professional development

for all teachers, and the school has on-site math and

literacy coaches who conduct professional development,

give demonstration lessons, and observe and coach in

the classrooms of their peers.

Other case study schools offer much more limited

professional development, none of it focused on

supporting English Learners across the school.

Decades ago it was assumed that ELs were the

responsibility of teachers who were part of the bilingual

or English as a second language program. Given current

demographics and the projected growth of the EL

population in California and nationwide (Fix and Passel,

2003; Papademetriou and Terrazas, 2009), it is safe to

assume that all teachers will have ELs in their classes

and, thus, should have the expertise to address ELs’

needs with quality. Futhermore, knowledge about how

to work with ELs in middle and high school is discipline-

specific; thus, all secondary teachers need to consider

themselves teachers of their subject matter, of reading

in their content area, and of the disciplinary uses of

English required to engage in valuable and discipline-

specific activities (Carnegie Council for Advancing

Adolescent Literacy, 2009). Likewise, all administrators

need EL-specific professional development so they can

PAGE

16

support teachers to do an increasingly better job for

English Learners.

Helping all teachers and administrators at a middle school

refine their skills continuously has the added advantages

of multiplying the number of advocates for the quality

education of ELs and other students and of replenishing

the pool of knowledgeable and committed educators who

can keep the vision clear and the work progressing.

ecommendations about professional development:

RR RCreateRaRsharedRvisionRacrossRtheRschoolRofReffectiveRteachingR—RforREnglishRLearnersRandRallRstudents.

RR RCreateRaRcultureRofRadultRlearningRthatRincludesRtimeRforRteachersRtoRworkRcollegially.

RR RExpandRteachers’RunderstandingRofRdisciplinaryRteaching.

RR RSupportRteachersRinRproblematizingRdisciplinaryRtextsR—RanalyzingRtheRdifficultiesRELRstudentsRwillRencounterRandRreformulatingRcontentRandRpedagogyRtoRincreaseRstudents’Raccess.

RR ProvideRadministratorsRwithRtheRprofessionalRdevelopmentRthatRallowsRthemRtoRbeRinstructionalRleadersRonRbehalfRofREnglishRLearners.

RR RMakeRELsReveryone’sRresponsibility.

Finally…

English Learners are not going to go away. In fact,

students who were born in this country or educated

exclusively in U.S. schools represent the area of greatest

growth in the EL population. (Goldenberg, 2008;

Batalova, Fix, and Murray, 2007). Students labeled

“long-term” ELs (those identified for seven years or

more as having limited English proficiency) have been

the most severely punished by inadequate academic

support. Most schools and districts do not keep separate

statistics on their long-term English Learners, but

everyone in schools knows who they are: “lifers,” as

some interviewees dismissively referred to them.

In this country, where we promise a first-rate education

for all children, we cannot permit conditions that doom

an entire population to something far less. This study

is only a tiny part of the work that needs to be done to

honor the promise of all students who enter our schools.

Within the next decade, 25 percent of all students in the

United States will be English Learners (U.S. DOE, 2006).

It is far from hyperbole to insist that English Learners

are everyone’s responsibility.

PAGE

17

ReferencesBatalova, J., Fix, M., & Murray, J. (2007). Measures of change: The demography and literacy of adolescent English Learners: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: The Migration Policy Institute.

California Department of Education. (2008, June). CELDT program update. Presentation to the Bilingual Coordinators Network, Long Beach, CA.

Carnegie Council for Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2009). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Eccles, J. (2008). Can middle school reform increase high school graduation rates? (California Dropout Research Project Rep. No. 12). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Gervitz Graduate School of Education.

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Gándara, P. & Rumberger, R. (2003). The inequitable treatment of English learners in California’s public schools (Working paper 2003-01). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goldenberg, C. (2008, Summer). Teaching English language learners. What the research does — and does not — say. American Educator.

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2008). Analysis of the 2007–08 budget bill: English learners. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Papademetriou, D., & Terrazas, A. (2009). Immigrants and the current economic crisis: Research evidence, policy challenges, and implications. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Rumberger, R. & Lim, S. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years of research (California Dropout Research Project Rep. No. 15). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Gervitz Graduate School of Education.

Schleppegrell, M. (2009) Language in academic subject areas and classroom instruction: What is academic language and how can we teach it? Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cfe/Paper_Mary_Schleppegrell.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Building partnerships to help English language learners. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/print/nclb/methods/english/lepfactsheet.html

Valdés, G., Alvarez, L., & MacSwan, J. (2009, October). Deficits and differences: Perspectives on language and education. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences meeting, The Role of Language in School Learning: Implications for Closing the Achievement Gap. Palo Alto, CA.

Wilson, L., & Horch, H. (2002). Implications of brain research for teaching young adolescents. Middle School Journal, 34 (1).

WestEd, a nonprofit research, development, and service agency, works with education and other communities to promote excel-

lence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. While WestEd serves the states of Arizona, California,

Nevada, and Utah as one of the nation’s Regional Educational Laboratories, our agency’s work extends throughout the United

States and abroad. It has 17 offices nationwide, from Washington and Boston to Arizona, Southern California, and its headquarters

in San Francisco. For more information about WestEd, visit our website: WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000 or, toll-free, (877) 4-WestEd;

or write: WestEd / 730 Harrison Street / San Francisco, CA 94107-1242.